Issue


Uniform Parentage Act

Key Points

  • The UPA treats children born through surrogacy as second-class, denying them the same safety checks—like background checks and home studies—required for adopted children placed with unrelated adults in non-surrogacy contexts.  
  • The UPA creates a system that carves out special treatment of adults using surrogacy that bypasses most of the critical screening factors for awarding custody in Title 23, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  • The UPA legalizes genetic surrogacy for profit, unlike current law, which limits surrogates using their own eggs to expense-only payments. Incentivizing the separation of a mother and her baby is not ethical and will lead to more coerced separations.
  • This bill exploits both women and children, treating them as commodities to be bought rather than humans with inherent dignity. 
  • The UPA allows for paid surrogacy arrangements using natural conception (paid intercourse for pregnancy).

SUMMARY

House Bill 350 redefines parentage to be established based on intent rather than on biology. While attempting to streamline the current surrogacy process, HB 350 denies protections to children conceived via surrogacy, and it expands gestational and genetic surrogacy for commercial purposes. The Uniform Parentage Act even allows for paid surrogacy arrangements using natural conception (i.e., paid intercourse for pregnancy). See Section 9823(c).

Status Quo on Surrogacy in Pennsylvania:
Currently, case law and judicial oversight determine how surrogacy operates in Pennsylvania. Gestational surrogacy (where a surrogate is impregnated using a donor egg unrelated to her) and genetic surrogacy (where a surrogate mother using her own egg is impregnated) are treated differently.

In cases of gestational surrogacy, which is the most common, a couple or individual who intend to be the parents of the baby they contracted via surrogacy will submit an order to a judge and ask to become the baby’s legal parents and to be placed on the baby’s birth certificate in place of the surrogate mother. Currently, judges in Pennsylvania can approve this parentage request and as part of the process, they can call a hearing to further examine the couple as an important layer of protection for babies created through surrogacy. Additionally, surrogacy lawyers in Pennsylvania encourage intended parents, especially in cases where one or both of the individuals is not related to the baby, to go through a confirmatory adoption to ensure parentage is clearly established. This ensures another level of protection for children created through surrogacy, as adoptions require crucial safety checks like home visits and background checks.

In cases of genetic surrogacy, the baby will be biologically related to the surrogate mother and parentage cannot be established before the baby is born. The couple or individual who want to obtain this child must formally adopt the baby after the baby is born. Women who go through genetic surrogacy are also currently prohibited from being paid for anything besides her expenses, based on the same laws that prohibit parents from putting their child up for adoption for profit.

What Does HB 350 Claim to Fix?
Proponents of HB 350 claim that, given the lack of legislation on surrogacy and the fact that judges can use individual discretion to hold hearings to establish parentage, we need uniformity for our surrogacy laws.

What Would HB 350 Actually Do?
HB 350’s “solution” is to automatically establish parentage on the basis of stated intent and does not require judicial oversight, which at least provided some protections to children conceived through surrogacy. This bill goes in the wrong direction, and instead of uniformly creating higher standards to protect the child, it treats children born through surrogacy as second-class, denying them the same safety checks—like background checks and home studies—required for adopted children placed with unrelated adults in non-surrogacy contexts. We must ensure that children have safe homes and HB 350 sacrifices children’s need for safe, loving homes in the name of ease and expediency for adults. Statistically the most dangerous person in a child’s life is a non-biologically related adult in the home. This certainly does not mean that is true for every non-biologically related adult in the home – however, it is why we have such stringent and thorough adoption laws.

In cases of genetic surrogacy where the surrogate is using her own egg and is therefore biologically related to the child, a court order would still be required, but unlike the status quo, the UPA would allow parentage to be established prior to birth and without an adoption. The UPA allows genetic surrogates to be paid for profit, above and beyond covering their expenses. See Section 9823(c) line 21-25. This is a radical departure from the status quo and would, in effect, allow women to sell their own biological children through surrogacy.

HB 350’s Post-conception validation for genetic surrogacy can be abused. Subchapter C Section 9824(b) says that with the agreement of all parties, the court may validate a genetic surrogacy agreement after assisted reproduction has occurred, as long as it is before the birth of the child. Under this bill, a woman could potentially undergo the necessary screenings, become pregnant via IUI (intrauterine insemination), and then “match” with the highest bidder before validating a contract with them. Currently, a pre-birth order is not allowed because the surrogate cannot terminate her parental rights until 72 hours after the child’s birth.

The Uniform Parentage Act even allows for paid surrogacy arrangements using natural conception (i.e., paid intercourse for pregnancy). Subchapter C Section 9823(c) allows for surrogacy contract (including a for-profit surrogacy contract) even if the child was conceived via intercourse instead of ART. “Unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise, if the child was not conceived by assisted reproduction, the genetic surrogate is not entitled to any non-expense-related compensation paid for serving as a genetic surrogate.” By stipulating that “unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise,” the bill permits paid intercourse for pregnancy.

TAKE ACTION

Take Action: Tell Your Legislators to Oppose the Uniform Parentage Act
Act Now

ARTICLES

Article: HealthDay (7/29/25, Mundell). Surrogate moms without prior mental illness were 43% more likely to develop a mental illness for the first time compared to moms who conceived and carried their own baby. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Article: Broad & Liberty (6/17/25, Cheryl Lynn Allen) Pennsylvania must reject the Uniform Parentage Act to protect children’s rights

Related Articles

Victory for Independence Law Center

Victory for Independence Law Center

Just got word from our chief counsel, Randy Wenger, that the Independence Law Center won a victory for Child Evangelism Fellowship in a dispute with the Harrisburg School District over "Good News Clubs." More details to come.

read more
Sensible Abortion Clinic Regulations Pass PA House 148-43!

Sensible Abortion Clinic Regulations Pass PA House 148-43!

(Harrisburg, May 11, 2011) For Immediate Release In an historic vote,the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in an overwhelming vote, adopted House Bill 574, which would apply the same licensure and safety standards on abortion clinics that all other outpatient...

read more
The Lyin’ King:  A Must Read.

The Lyin’ King: A Must Read.

(written in response to the major DC law firm King & Spalding dropping its representation defending the Defense of Marriage Act due to pressure from homosexual groups.  From FRC's Daily Briefing 4-26-11) Attorneys at King & Spalding probably thought that...

read more
Pa. should bolster abortion clinic oversight

Pa. should bolster abortion clinic oversight

From PFI's very own Dan Bartkowiak: "If you constantly demand access to safe, legal and critical care for women seeking abortions, you must agree that our abortion facilities, with doctors performing surgical procedures, be held to the same health standard of every...

read more
Defending DOMA

Defending DOMA

This Letter to the Editor appeared in The Patriot News on March 22: The Federal Defense of Marriage Act must be defended to ensure the integrity of our government and the protection of state rights defining marriage. Our president has no right to act as judge and sole...

read more
Are Christians Obsessed With Gays and Abortion?

Are Christians Obsessed With Gays and Abortion?

This is an article truly worth reading.  David French looks at the facts versus the perception: Imagine a world in which mainstream coverage of Christian America reflected our actual expenditures and actual efforts. You'd barely hear from people like me, and perhaps...

read more
Are we surprised?

Are we surprised?

Are we surprised that inspections at two more Philadelphia-area abortion centers uncovered atrocious, unsanitary conditions? No. We expect more revelations. Are we surprised that “pro-choice” politicians are still trying to protect the abortion industry? No. It’s part...

read more

Get Email Updates

Request Help